I wasn't sure as any processor can only be pushed so far whether it's VM or not. I thought maybe the fact that I could set the 2 VMs so that they were running on different disks optimizing the Hard disks might be a bonus.

I do run malaria control as well. But I suppose I could also install a cheap GPU into my server in native mode which would help tremendously.

Intuitively two VMs will be lower than a single instance of BOINC running S@H on a multi-core (or multi-thread) machine. I say this because there is an overhead associated with running VMs - the VM manager is a task that consumes some CPU cycles to sort out things like disk and video access. VMs are great for low CPU use jobs, but S@H is a very heavy suer of the CPU - on my 6 core all 5 cores are maxed out most of the time. Also S@H is a low disk demand process, only accessing the disk at the start of a new work unit and about once a minute to do a check-point save so there is little to be gained by having uber-fast disk access by whatever technology.Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Another option to consider is to run BOINC on the native OS & then VM's on top of that. That is what I am currently doing with my 24 core box.
I am using Windows as the native OS with VirtualBox for the VM's. It is a larger hit in performance for the VM's, but the VM's I am running are very low load, such as DHCP & DNS. So if they have to wait a few extra clock cycles it doesn't really matter.SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours Join the BP6/VP6 User Group today!